Advertisement

Advertisement

UK government scientists must be free to talk to media

As we tackle issues such as climate change, new rules tightening the access government researchers have to the media will harm public trust, says a freedom of speech campaigner

By Jodie Ginsberg

New rules will affect UK civil servants’ ability to interact with journalists

(Image: Neil Hall/Reuters)

In a speech on science and trust last year, Paul Nurse, the president of the Royal Society in London, observed&colon; “Science… can improve our health and quality of life, help solve the world’s problems of food security and energy, support sustainability, and drive economic growth. But to achieve this there needs to be a good relationship between science and society, based on trust in science and of scientists… Good science requires honesty and openness.”

Achieving that just got a whole lot harder after UK government minister Francis Maude changed the civil service code, making it tougher for government scientists to talk to the media. Now they must get authorisation from their minister before having any contact with journalists.

This will affect thousands working on vital issues such as climate change and energy in government-funded institutes and departments. As is so often the case with changes that appear to be minor – a single sentence here, a paragraph there – the government argues that this update to the code is not new, but merely clarifies existing rules. In practice, though, the changes harden up existing practice in a way that is likely to encourage more press office spin and discourage open communication.

Advertisement

We know this from the experience elsewhere. Similar rules introduced in 2008 in Canada have had a hugely damaging impact on exchanges between government scientists and the public. In a 2013 survey of more than 4000 federal scientists, 48 per cent said they were aware of cases where their department or agency “had suppressed or declined to release information, and where this led to incomplete, inaccurate or misleading impressions”. Three-quarters said they thought the sharing of government science findings with the Canadian public had become too restricted.

The impact is clearest on the question of climate change. In 2010, a leaked internal analysis from Environment Canada – the government department responsible for coordinating environmental policies and programmes – found that media coverage and information requests on climate change (its most high-profile issue) had fallen by over 80 per cent. Imagine that being repeated with other issues of vital public interest, such as genetics, reproductive technologies or energy policy.

Like good science, good government requires honesty and openness. The role that freedom of information legislation and practice has played in introducing much-needed sunlight into the dusty corridors of power demonstrates how highly such openness is prized.

We must not undo that good work by making it harder for civil servants to speak out – to do so would be to undermine further the already shaky trust in public institutions, to drive public science back to the realm of hearsay and heresy, and to damage democracy.

The UK’s “clarification” of the rules for civil servants is unnecessary tinkering that presents serious risks. It should be reversed.

Advertisement

Jodie Ginsberg is chief executive of the Index on Censorship, an international group defending the right to freedom of expression